This rubric pairs with the “Literary Detectives: Discover and Recover a Neglected Author” assignment.
RUBRIC: Literary Detectives: Research and Recover a Neglected Woman Author
| Clarity of Purpose | 15 pts Full Marks The project’s objectives are clearly stated. Motivations for choosing the particular author, as well as the author’s importance, are readily apparent. The audience quickly gets a sense of the importance of the author or their work from the opening section/s. | 12 pts Very Good (AB/B) The project’s objectives are clearly stated, for the most part. Motivations for choosing the particular author, as well as the author’s importance, are mostly apparent. The audience can understand the general importance of the author or their work from the opening sections. | 10 pts Good (BC/C) The project’s objectives are somewhat clear. Motivations for choosing the particular author, as well as the author’s importance, are somewhat apparent. The audience can somewhat understand the general importance of the author or their work from the opening sections. | 5 pts Needs Improvement (D) The project’s objectives, motives, and relevance are unclear. Author importance, in general, is difficult to grasp from the opening sections. | 0 pts Oof. No discernible effort. |
| Significance | 15 pts Full Marks Student provides insightful and in-depth background information to demonstrate the significance of the author and the historical context that contributed to the neglect of the author. The chosen author is relevant to our class and to intersectional feminism. The author has been legitimately understudied. | 12 pts Very Good (AB/B) Student provides mostly in-depth background information to demonstrate the significance of the author and the historical context that contributed to the neglect of the author. The chosen author is mostly relevant to our class and to intersectional feminism. The author has been legitimately understudied. | 10 pts Good (BC/C) Student provides good background information to demonstrate the significance of the project and the historical context of the problem/issue. May be vague or confusing in parts. The problem/issue is somewhat relevant to our class and to intersectional feminism and pop culture. The author has been legitimately understudied. | 5 pts Needs Improvement (D) Student provides little to no background information to demonstrate the significance of the author and the historical context that led to the author’s neglect. The author is not very relevant to our class and to intersectional feminism. The author may not be understudied. | 0 pts Oof. No discernible effort. |
| Analysis & Detail | 20 pts Full Marks High level of detail provided to educate the audience. Level of detail allows audience to make judgments about the content and issues therein. Project demonstrates an in-depth analysis of a neglected author and in-depth analysis of why that author should be recovered for readers and the academic community. Text demonstrates personal engagement and could not have been completed solely by AI. | 18 pts Very Good (AB/B) Solid level of detail provided to educate the audience. Level of detail mostly allows audience to make judgments about the content and issues therein. Project demonstrates a good analysis of a neglected author and in-depth analysis of why that author should be recovered for readers and the academic community. Text demonstrates personal engagement and could not have been completed solely by AI. | 15 pts Good (BC/C) Good level of detail provided to educate the audience. Level of detail somewhat allows audience to make judgments about the content and issues therein. Project somewhat demonstrates an analysis of a neglected author and an analysis of why that author should be recovered for readers and the academic community. Text demonstrates personal engagement and could not have been completed solely by AI. | 10 pts Needs Improvement (D) Inadequate level of detail provided to educate the audience. Project does not facilitate the audience making judgments about the content and issues therein. Project demonstrates a vague analysis of a neglected author. Project does little to demonstrate why the author should be recovered for readers and the academic community. Text is generic and lacking in substance—similar to text generated by AI tools. | 0 pts Oof. No discernible effort. (NOTE: This result may lead to a 50-100% point deduction if original student work is not evident.) |
| Sources | 10 pts Full Marks Includes 3+ credible sources in MLA or APA format. Information can easily be traced back to all listed sources. | 8 pts Very Good (AB/B) Includes 3+ credible sources in MLA or APA format. Information can easily be traced back to all listed sources. | 7 pts Good (BC/C) Includes 3+ credible sources in MLA or APA format. Most information can be traced back to listed sources. | 4 pts Needs Improvement (D) Some information can be traced back to listed sources. Sources exist but are not credible. | 0 pts Oof. Sources do not exist or could not have provided most of the information in the project. (NOTE: This result may lead to a 50-100% deduction if original student work is not evident.) |
| Organization | 15 pts Full Marks The project is very well organized. Ideas follow one another in a logical sequence. No areas that confuse the audience or seem to have no purpose in the project. | 12 pts Very Good (AB/B) The project is fairly well organized. One or two ideas may seem out of place. | 10 pts Good (BC/C) The project is somewhat organized but hard to follow and confusing at times. | 5 pts Needs Improvement (D) Ideas seem to be randomly arranged. No effort at organization. Project is confusing and does not have a readily apparent purpose. Project may not be connected to intersectional feminism. | 0 pts Oof. No discernible effort. |
| Visual Impact, Spelling/Grammar | 15 pts Full Marks Project is well documented and easily navigated. Includes appealing visuals or other elements to maximize audience engagement and understanding. All text is grammatically correct and contains very few spelling or grammar errors. | 12 pts Very Good (AB/B) In one or two places, the information is confusing, generic, or a bit vague. Includes a few visuals or other elements to maximize audience engagement and understanding. Fewer than 4 major spelling/ grammar errors. | 10 pts Good (BC/C) In several places, the information is confusing, generic, or a bit vague. Includes one or two visuals or other elements to maximize audience engagement and understanding. Fewer than 6 major spelling/ grammar errors. | 5 pts Needs Improvement (D) Project is confusing, vague, or generic. Project contains no visuals or other elements to foster audience understanding and engagement. Six or more major spelling /grammar errors. | 0 pts Oof. No discernible effort |
| Effort | 10 pts Full Marks The project amply demonstrates that the student has studied the author and has thought deeply about why the author deserves to be recovered. Effort is suitable for an end-of-semester project. Effort at creating in-depth, meaningful learning opportunity for audience is evident. | 8 pts Very Good (AB/B) The project demonstrates that the student has studied the author and has thought deeply about why the author deserves to be recovered. Effort is suitable for an end-of-semester project. Effort at creating in-depth, meaningful learning opportunity for audience is mostly evident. | 7 pts Good (BC/C) The project somewhat demonstrates that the student has studied the author and has thought deeply about why the author deserves to be recovered. Student effort is somewhat suitable for an end-of-semester project. Student’s effort at creating in-depth, meaningful learning opportunity for audience is somewhat evident. | 4 pts Needs Improvement (D) The project does not demonstrate that the student has studied the author and has thought deeply about why the author deserves to be recovered. Student effort is minimal. Student’s effort at creating in-depth, meaningful learning opportunity for audience is not evident. | 0 pts Oof. No discernible effort. |
TOTAL: 100 Points